Only logical issue I see is his that in saying evolution is a theory and a fact this did not follow his pattern of things that are facts and theories. For instance, he said the existence of cells is a fact and cell theory is a reasonable way of explaining how cells function.
I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems like this is the same thing as saying cells are a theory and a fact. But that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say life is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly?
He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.
I guess I'm just confused because he uses the same word "evolution". It seems like this is the same thing as saying cells are a theory and a fact. But that doesn't even make sense as far as the word "cells" goes. Wouldn't it make more sense to say life is a fact and evolution is a reasonable way of explaining how life functions? Or something along those lines, I can't quite wrap my head around it. Perhaps someone can explain this more clearly?
He might just be using two definitions of the word "evolution" to make a point/sound more poetic. But this just comes off as more confusing to me.